School Psychology Quarterly © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013. Vol. 28, No. 2. 170-182 IO45-383O/13/$12.OO DOI: IO.IO37/spqOOOOO15

Networks of Professional Supervision

Jean Annan Ken Ryba

Massey University University of Calgary

An ecological analysis of the supervisory activity of 31 New Zealand school psychol-

ogists examined simultaneously the theories of school psychology, supervision prac-
tices, and the contextual qualities that mediated participants' supervisory actions. The
findings indicated that the school psychologists worked to achieve the supervision goals
of support, knowledge, and accountability through reciprocal interaction in multiple
relationships within and outside of their professional community. With the notion of
supervision broadened to include all activity undertaken to meet the supervisory goals,
greater levels of participation and satisfaction with supervisory provision were shown
than in many previous studies. The school psychologists utilized various opportunities
for supervision support in their day-to-day practice rather than relying solely on
traditional dyadic or fixed-group forms. Supervision practices of the school psycholo-
gists were situated within the activity of a networked community of supervision
practice. Implications for conceptualizing supervision as a broad, situated activity are
discussed.

Keywords: supervision, networks, educational psychology, school psychology, community of

practice

Participation in Supervision 2010). Supervision in school psychology is an

Supervision is regarded as an essential
component of sound professional practice in
various social professions. It is the corner-
stone of professional development (Falender
& Shafranske, 2004) and deeply entrenched
in the ethos of professionals such as school
psychology (Allison & Upah, 2008; Crespi &
Dube, 2006; Flanagan & Grehan, 2011; Har-
vey & Struzziero, 2008; Sullivan & Conoley,
2008; Wells, 2009), counseling (McMahon &
Patton, 2002; Nelson, Nichter & Henriksen,
2010; Scaife, 2001), nursing (Ashmore &
Carver, 2000; Koivu, Hyrkas, & Saarinen,
2011), teaching (Marshall, 2009; Nolan &
Hoover, 2007), and postgraduate study (Hol-
brook & Johnston, 1999; Stenken & Zajicek,
Jean Annan, Educational Psychology Program, Massey
University, Auckland, New Zealand; Ken Ryba, Centre for
Teaching and Leaming, University of Calgary, Alberta,
Canada.
Correspondence conceming this article should be ad-
dressed to Jean Annan, Positively Psychology, P. O. Box
28483, Remuera, Auckland, New Zealand, 1541. E-mail:
jean@positively.co.nz
essential vehicle for professional develop-
ment, facilitating effective delivery of psy-
chological services, and maintaining compe-
tencies (Mclntosh & Phelps, 2000). The Na-
tional Association of School Psychologists
(NASP) position statement on supervision
(2011) states that "supervision of educators is
essential to school improvement and
student success" (p. 5).
Over the past two decades, school psycholo-
gists have reported low rates of participation in
supervision, and many have expressed dissatis-
faction with their supervisory experience (Cha-
fouleas. Clonan, & VanAuken, 2002; Jimerson
et al., 2006; Fischetti & Crespi, 1999; Pomer-
antz, 1993; Ryba, Annan, & Mentis, 2001;
Smith Harvey & Pearrow, 2010). The findings
of research conducted by ThieUcing, Moore, and
Jimerson (2006) suggest that concems with su-
pervision continue. Their survey of 29 school
psychologists in Australia found one third of the
participants did not receive supervision and
46% did not experience supervision as satisfac-
tory. Others have questioned the quality of su-
pervision practice. For example, supervisors'
failure to follow established models of supervi-
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
sion or to use clinical techniques was seen to
indicate a need for further education in super-
vision (Wells, 2009).
However, despite reports of unsatisfactory
formal supervision, many psychologists are en-
gaging in effective and competent work and
have kept abreast of current school psychology
practice. This observation suggests that they are
discovering or creating other ways to meet the
goals of supervision. Findings such as those in
ThieUcing et al.'s (2006) Australian study of
supervision in school psychology, which indi-
cated that rates of formal supervision vary in
relation to particular supervisory contexts and
conditions, suggest that the supervisory envi-
ronment plays a part in shaping the form of
supervision that practitioners select. The nature
of available supervision was not always accept-
able to the experienced psychologists in Thiel-
king et al.'s research. Supervision practice of
school psychologists can be impacted uniquely
by environmental infiuences, (e.g., systemic
workplace qualities) (Smith Harvey & Pearrow,
2010). Other influences identified as mediating
psychologists' experience of supervision in-
cluded the nature and quality of professional
relationships (Dickson, Moberley, Marshall, &
Reilly, 2010) and cultural influences (Tummala-
Narra, 2004).
The Purpose of Supervision
Supervision is undertaken for various pur-
poses. Although each of the numerous models
of supervision reflects a particular theoretical
orientation, there is a high level of consistency
about the foci of supervisory practice within the
range of professions valuing and promoting su-
pervision. In brief, supervision is carried out to
achieve three broad purposes: (1) support, (2)
accessing and developing professional knowl-
edge, and (3) maintenance of professional stan-
dards. These three elements are assigned differ-
ent names by the various writers. For example.
Proctor (1987) named the three aspects with
regard for their functions: normative, formative,
and restorative. Similarly, Kadushin (1992)
considered the functions of the three elements
and chose to use the terms supportive, admin-
istrative, and educative. Supervisory activity in
the various models of supervision usually in-
volves each of these aspects simultaneously,
with an emphasis determined by the supervisory
171
task at hand (Inskipp & Proctor, 1994; Scaife,
2001). The NASP gives weight to two dimen-
sions: administrative supervision that empha-
sizes the normative aspect of practice and
professional supervision that emphasizes the
formative aspect of professional practice
(NASP, 2011).
Thinking About Supervision
Activities most acceptable to people, and those
in which they are most likely to engage, are those
based on theories that practitioners genuinely hold
(Argyris & Schön, 1974). Considering the wide
diversity among practitioners and the dynamic
nature of knowledge, supervision likely varies in
form across different supervisory contexts and is
transformed in response to various shifting theo-
retical perspectives. This suggests that profes-
sional groups such as school psychologists may
not or need not be locked into thinking about
supervision in one way, including its traditional
form. Supervision in school psychology may ex-
tend beyond the traditional dyadic unit repre-
sented in most supervision literature. Flexibility is
implied in the comment of Mclntosh and Phelps
(2000) below.
Supervision is an interpersonal interaction between
two or more individuals for the purpose of sharing
knowledge, assessing professional competencies, and
providing objective feedback with the terminal goals of
developing new competencies, facilitating effective
delivery of psychological services, and maintaining
professional competencies (Mclntosh & Phelps, 2000,
pp. 33-34).
Mclntosh and Phelps defined supervision in
such a way that did not determine any particular
approach or type of relationship. Rather, the
emphasis is on the purposes for which the su-
pervisory activity was undertaken and, thus, is
in line with the NASP perspective that com-
prises largely normative and formative aspects
of supervision (National Association of School
Psychologists, 2011).
Method of Inquiry
The purposes of the present study were to
identify and understand participation in super-
visory activity among a group of school psy-
chologists. The scope of supervision was broad-
ened to encompass all action taken by the
participants to meet the goals of supervision: to
172 ANNAN AND RYBA
obtain and provide personal and professional
support, furtber professional knowledge, and
ensure tbat psycbology practice was sound. Tbis
supervisory activity was viewed as tbe partici-
pants' supervision-in-action. Supervision-in-
action was activity in wbich the participants had
chosen to engage and therefore was able to shed
light on the nature of participation and satisfac-
tory supervisory events.
A situational analysis (Annan, 2005) based
on ecological tbeory was undertaken to explore
three levels of the context of supervision: su-
pervisory practice, theoretical knowledge, and
conditions that mediated supervisory practice
and the theoretical knowledge. This method was
cbosen for two reasons. Tbe metbod supported
tbe development of understanding of tbe social,
professional, and bistorical context of the cur-
rent supervisory practice of tbe scbool psycbol-
ogists, and it aligned with the casework concep-
tualization process of the participants. In a
situational analysis, the method of exploring a
topic is specifically designed for each situation
and considers interdependent influences from
multiple levels of the environment. It requires
that the strengths of a situation are identified to
provide a foundation for building new under-
standings and practices. Tbe process is inber-
ently collaborative, witb participants taking an
active role in creating sbared meaning for tbeir
activity (see Annan, 2005 for details).
Tbe situational analysis approach to research
and professional practice requires that plans for
data gathering are specifically designed to ex-
plore influences that may support or mitigate the
situation and to seek information from various
sources at various ecological levels. The social
and historical contexts of supervision were ex-
plored using a combination of professional pub-
lication reviews and semistructured interviews
to understand school psychologists' current
means of pursuing supervision goals.
The exploration focused on the following areas.
The methods to obtain information for each area
are noted: (1) reported activity of the school psy-
chologists in relation to the supervisory goals (us-
ing semistructured interviews and reference group
consultation); (2) school psychologists' satisfac-
tion with current supervisory arrangements (using
semistructured interviews); (3) the historical and
theoretical underpinnings of supervision (using re-
views of supervision theory and research); (4) the
theoretical basis of contemporary practice (using
reviews of contemporary educational psycbology
literature); and (5) conditions tbat mediate be-
tween supervision theory and supervision practice
(using interviews).
Exploring the Supervisory Activity of a
Group of School Psychologists
Thirty-one scbool psychologists whose pro-
fessional experiences ranged from 1 to 18 years
(M = 9 years) provided information about tbe
ways they met their supervisory goals. The par-
ticipants were employed in a government
agency, in area offices, and independent of
scbools throughout the country. Tbe school psy-
chologists and other special educators em-
ployed by tbe agency (e.g., special education
advisors and speecb and language therapists)
worked in multidisciplinary teams as consultants
to surrounding scbools and early cbildhood cen-
ters. The participants did not work in the same
physical locations, yet being employed by the
same agency they sbared an Internet network and
common practice guidelines. Most were con-
nected througb their participation in sbared pro-
fessional development meetings. Informed con-
sent was received from eacb participant and from
the employing organization. The study was ap-
proved by tbe Massey University Human Ethics
Committee, Auckland, New Zealand.
Using semistructured interviews, one re-
searcher asked participants to discuss selected
topics (listed below). Questions were designed
to ensure tbat reference to supervision activity
was generated by the participants and not im-
posed by tbe researcbers. As the term supervi-
sion generally was assumed in the participants'
workplace to represent a formalized, dyadic, or
structured group activity, the opening two ques-
tions were framed to allow participants to report
supervisory activity inside their familiar param-
eters. Responses to the opening questions
served to document initial notions of supervi-
sion. The following five questions were asked:
(1) Purpose: What is the purpose of your pro-
fessional supervision? (2) Concept of supervi-
sion: What are the activities and content of
supervision? (3) Support and knowledge: How
do you access personal support and professional
information for your work? (4) Accountability:
How do you ensure that your fieldwork is pro-
ficient/of high quality? (5) Satisfaction with su-
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
pervision: Are you satisfied with your supervi-
sory situation?
Participants were asked to comment on what
they did rather than what they thought in order
to help ensure that the data collected repre-
sented theories-in-action. Notes were taken in
full view of the participants throughout the in-
terviews and recorded as a combination of ver-
batim and summarized contributions. After the
interview, all participants reviewed electronic
copies of their contributions and modified these
as they wished in order to help ensure that notes
taken reflected participants' views. Each partic-
ipant was asked to verify that the entries repre-
sented their view.
Deriving Meaning-Data Analysis
Information from interviews and literature or
document reviews was considered simultane-
ously in the construction of a contextualized
meaning. The situational analysis allowed insti-
tutional and professional discourse, a range of
mediating influences, and the school psycholo-
gists' experience of providing and receiving
support, professional lcnowledge, and account-
ability to be viewed simultaneously. Data were
processed first by analysis of each ecological
dimension and, during a second stage, by con-
sidering relationships among the dimensions.
Emerging themes in the data were catego-
rized into discrete dimensions. NVivo computer
software was used for coding, storing, and re-
trieving data provided by participants. The con-
struction of meaning was performed manually.
The theoretical dimension was informed by lit-
erature from the profession and from the partic-
ipants' institution, the mediation dimension by
written accounts (e.g., research reports) and the
participants' views of influential conditions, and
the supervision practice dimension by the par-
ticipants' supervisory activity. When examining
the supervision practice dimension, a process of
identif^ying subthemes and assigning ¿le data to
each of these categories continued until the
identified subthemes accounted for all informa-
tion supplied by each participant. Once tbe three
dimensions representing each level of the con-
text of supervision were developed, five volun-
teer members of the professional community
collaborated with the researcher to review and
validate the results.
173
Results
The results are reported as three interrelated
dimensions: (1) theories of supervision and
practice, (2) contemporary supervision practice,
and (3) mediators of supervision (See Figure 1).
Dimension 1: Theories of Supervision and
Practice
Traditional notions of supervision. Over
time, views of human development shift and
social and professional systems change. What
practitioners consider as assets, problems, or the
best ways forward accordingly change (Mun-
son, 2002). The nature of professional support is
influenced by these changes.
Although the precise origin of supervision is
not known, there are early accounts of supervi-
sion in the 1800s when social workers, within
an arm of medicine, developed professional re-
lationships with physicians. The traditional no-
tion of supervision appears to have been shaped
within the charity organizations of 19th century
England where social workers guided the work
of volunteers who provided moral treatments
for the poor (Milne, 2009). Although the nature
of professional practice and the relationships
between fieldwork participants have changed
recently, the espoused form and structure of
supervision have remained reasonably constant,
with a supervisor being responsible for the work
of a nominated supervisee or group of supervis-
ees whom they meet through regularly sched-
uled conferences (Munson, 2002).
Traditional notions of supervision remain im-
plicit in many professions. This is evident in
supervision literature that generally considers
supervision as a dyadic interaction, usually be-
tween an experienced and less experienced
member of a professional community. The sin-
gle, often unidirectional, relationship is as-
sumed in many supervision models, such as
discrimination (Bernard, 1979), competency-
based (Falender & Shafranske, 2004), develop-
mental (Hewson, 1992; Stoltenberg, McNeill, &
Delworth, 1998), systemic (HoUoway, 1995),
social-cognitive (Larson, 1998), double-matrix,
(Skovholt & Ronnestad, 1992), and cyclical
(Page & Wosket, 1994) models.
Contemporary practice. The nature of
people's connections with one another recently
has changed considerably, with growing na-
174 ANNAN AND RYBA

Mediators of
Supervision
Professional connection
Situational /cultural Knowledge
Professional Knov/îedge
Interpersonal Relationship

Contemporary
Theories of Supervision
Supervision and Practice
Practice Formal
Contemporary interactive Informal
theories of learning
Situated
Traditional dyadic models of
supervision Social
Literary

Figure 1. The three dimensions of supervisory practice.

tional and international mobility and an ever-
increasing flow of knowledge through the Inter-
net. People have access to a wider range of
knowledge than ever before and can develop
relationships with diverse groups of people. Just
as the nature of human relationships has
changed, so has associated social activity. In
today's highly connected world, a single rela-
tionship is unlikely to satisfy practitioners' pro-
fessional needs for support. Concurrent with
changes in the social environment, there is a
growing preference for theories of human de-
velopment that view active reciprocity between
people and their particular social environments
and also increased recognition and appreciation
of culture and diversity (see Annan & Priestley,
2011; Cameron, 2006; Farrell, 2010; Kennedy,
2006; Lee, 2010; Ysseldyke et al., 2006).
Recent examples of mentoring that empha-
size the support and knowledge aspects of prac-
tice indicate a shift in the way people think
about professional assistance. Junior university
staff members are advised to develop relation-
ships with multiple mentors because single re-
lationships may not provide all of the knowl-
edge and support required for their projects
(Stenken & Zajicek, 2010). Multiple supervi-
sion and mentoring relationships may contrib-
ute to individual and professional community
knowledge development as practitioners with
varying levels of experience connect with one
another. Tacit knowledge about organizational
procedures comes to be known, notions of best
practices are shared, and potential methods of
problem solving are accessed through participa-
tion in such networks (Stenken & Zajicek,
2010). This suggests that effective and support-
ive mentoring is fostered through access to so-
cial networks.
Dimension 2: Contemporary Supervision
Practice
The psychologists who participated in this
study reported that they engaged in multiple
activities to gather support, further professional
knowledge, and help ensure that the quahty of
work was maintained. The forms of activity
mentioned by the participants fell into five cat-
egories: informal supervision conversations, ac-
tivity situated in the work of professional teams,
formal supervision conversations, conferences
and workshops, and access to professional lit-
erature through libraries and the Internet. Par-
ticipants also noted the importance of profes-
sional reflection in meeting these goals.
Informal supervision conversations. All
participants reported that they sought informal
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
or specifically targeted supervision conversa-
tions with colleagues conceming matters arising
in their fieldwork. Some noted that supervision
was an integrated process and that they never
were really off-task at work and that supervision
was what they did 8 hours a day. However, all
participants reported making informal yet spe-
cific contacts with selected colleagues to discuss
their work. Most commonly, they sought con-
sultation with experienced psychologists who
had knowledge and expertise in relation to a
particular practice or project. The psychologists
had a number of preferred colleagues who they
approached first with professional problems.
The nature of interaction within the group
changed as individuals became more knowl-
edgeable about school psychology practices.
Several psychologists noted that as they gained
professional experience, colleagues increas-
ingly came to them for professional support.
Although most psychologists reported they
would seek professional support from other
psychologists, several approached professionals
from other disciplines or colleagues who held
management roles. Such arrangements often
were reciprocal and developed for the duration
of a specific project. Informal conversation was
the preferred mode in emergency situations:
some issues required immediate attention and
could not wait 2 weeks. The degree of formality
in specifically targeted supervision varied de-
pending on the urgency and magnitude of the
issue. Sometimes a brief conversation with a
neighboring colleague would suffice, while at
other times supervisory partners reported that
they explored topics systematically and in
depth.
Several participants indicated that informal or
targeted conversations were the most efficient and
effective means of meeting supervision goals.
These conversations provided a focused level of
support not always available in formal supervi-
sion. Some psychologists noted that they preferred
informal, specifically targeted supervision and be-
lieved it offered benefits over formal supervision
in terms of professional development, support,
and ethical practice. One psychologist who did not
find the provision of scheduled supervision re-
warding indicated she was keen to work with
colleagues and support them as matters arose and,
on occasion, may suggest that they visit afieldsite
together. While the participants valued informal
supervision, some were mindful of their reliance
175
on the goodwill and schedules of the psycholo-
gists from whom they sought supervision. Partic-
ipation in informal supervision required psychol-
ogists to consider the positions of other people and
to construct shared understandings of roles and
responsibilities when supervisory relationships
were developed over specific issues.
Situated supervision: Professional/Interpro-
fessional team activity. Participants discussed
the supervisory benefits of active participation
in service teams. Many spoke enthusiastically
about the value of teaming to ensure high qual-
ity professional practice. All belonged to inter-
disciplinary teams that varied in the extent to
which they engaged in coworking in field prac-
tice. One participant who worked closely with
team members described the team functioning
as a combination of shared working, shared
reflection, and shared planning. Although mem-
bers belonged to designated service teams, in
practice, the composition of smaller working
teams varied as teams were formed around spe-
cific field tasks.
Those involved in joint fieldwork welcomed
the opportunity to work alongside others, de-
brief, review, and discuss case concems. The
team context provided opportunities to effi-
ciently evaluate professional practice and to en-
gage in meaningful interaction. Supervision of-
ten occurred amid activities associated with
fieldwork (e.g., traveling to sites). One partici-
pant indicated that, following meetings, team
members might ask if the situation could have
been handled differently. Another commented
she debriefed with colleagues while retuming
from sites.
Teaming provided many opportunities to
leam with one another in an apprenticeship sys-
tem. Working with other psychologists and
team members firom various disciplines pro-
vided a context that enabled the participants to
gain a broader view and formed the basis of
knowledge networks. The composition of teams
also allowed members to work and leam along-
side people from different cultures. Leaming
opportunities were available to new psycholo-
gists as well as to established members of the
group who valued the opportunity teaming of-
fered to associate with newcomers who contrib-
uted new perspectives on practice.
Most participants commented on the value of
their participation in teams to check their prac-
tice with reference to relevant professional
176 ANNAN AND RYBA
codes. When working with people closely, prac-
tice was visible. Thus, to work unsafely, unno-
ticed, or ineffectively would be difficult. Team-
ing ensured that practices were visible and
open. Some reported regular weekly opportuni-
ties to ask and to be asked, to seek advice, and
to clarify concerns. Teaming was reported by
participants to promote personal and public
safety by allowing team members to identify
when colleagues required help. It provided
many opportunities to inform and affirm each
other's practices on the job. Several participants
commented that psychologists should not work
alone and instead believed success increased as
they evaluated the whole process with the group
as they progressed.
In teams where coworking was infrequent (e.g.,
in smaller rural areas), school psychologists
worked in relative isolation to their colleagues.
Some of these participants noted that they would
prefer to cowork more often yet made good use of
informal supervision within their small office
teams and supplemented support through other
forms of professional connection.
Formal supervision conversations. Formal
supervision conversation was the activity to
which the participants most often referred as
supervision. Psychologists were receiving for-
mal supervision from other psychologists and
were involved frequently with the provision of
supervision for psychologists and professionals
working in related disciplines. Although many
formal supervisory relationships involved experi-
enced and less experienced psychologists in rela-
tion to the type of work supervised, several carried
out supervision in reciprocal arrangements with
peers. Some had more than one formal supervi-
sory relationship. Some psychologists belonged to
supervision groups that comprised either similarly
experienced peers, or psychologists with varying
levels of experience and diverse backgrounds.
Most supervisory relationships involved partner-
ships with colleagues within the same organiza-
tion, while some experienced school psycholo-
gists sought supervision from psychologists in
other agencies.
Supervisory relationships developed around
general and specific aspects of professional
work. For example, psychologists obtained su-
pervision for their work associated with the
family court and for cultural aspects of field-
work. One participant of European descent ex-
plained that she supervised with a Kaita-
kawaenga (Maori cultural advisor) on general
rather than Maori cultural practices. Psycholo-
gists also made contact with their nominated
supervisor on an informal basis if difficulties
arose in their work.
Sixty-eight percent of the school psycholo-
gists who participated in formal supervision
placed a high value on its practice as a means to
reflect on their work. This helped to ensure
consistent scheduling of supervision sessions.
Participants welcomed opportunities offered by
formal conversations to reflect, to review pro-
grams, and to debrief. Formal supervision pro-
vided opportunities to discuss matters that
might not be appropriate in more open forums,
and to consider general professional practice
matters. Participants were aware that their work
required them to demonstrate their involvement
in supervision through participation in a formal
supervisory dyad or group. While some viewed
this requirement as supportive others did not,
and, as previously discussed, chose to pursue
professional development and support in other
ways.
Supervisory partnerships for some partici-
pants were changed purposely from time to time
while others were maintained to ensure that
established relationships endured. Sometimes
supervisory relationships continued when a par-
ticipant did not consider the arrangements to be
ideal yet recognized that the relationship offered
some degree of support and comphance with
employment requirements. For example, one
participant noted that in her formal supervision
the two peers' supervisory styles did not match
and that the sessions were used to obtain second
opinions rather than to offer a primary source of
support.
Social gatherings: Conferences, courses
and seminars. Participants attended courses,
conferences, workshops, or seminars when pos-
sible as a means of accessing knowledge, skill,
and support for their work. They gained support
and knowledge for particular and general as-
pects of their work through participation in pro-
fessional committees, professional development
courses, and research projects.
Literary connection. Participants con-
sulted professional literature to support their
work, recognizing that this form of connection
with the wider professional community contrib-
uted to their professional knowledge. Most
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
scbool psychologists' reading focused on spe-
cific topics related to casework, wbile some
participants kept current with general profes-
sional developments. They recognized tbe value
of Intemet sites and online joumals and made
frequent positive reference to their organiza-
tion's library.
Satisfaction with supervision. Wben su-
pervision was envisaged as a practice tbat en-
compassed tbe broad range of activities under-
taken to meet tbe goals of supervision, 90% of
participants reported they were satisfied with
their current levels of supervision provision.
Among the satisfied participants, 68% were en-
gaging in satisfactory formalized supervision,
21% were not receiving formal supervision within
their workplace, and 11% were receiving formal
supervision they did not consider to be adequate.
The overall satisfaction of the latter group was
attributed to tbeir meeting supervisory needs
through participation in supplementary activities
outside the formal dyadic relationship.
Dimension 3: Mediators of Supervision
The current study indicated that several qual-
ities mediated supervisory activity. These were
the nature and extent of opportunities for pro-
fessional connection, familiarity with the cul-
tural contexts of practice including community
organizational and professional understandings,
their expertise and professional knowledge in
relation to professional responsibilities, and in-
terpersonal relationsbips sucb as trust and cul-
tural or tbeoretical perspective.
While formal supervision was required by
the participants' organization, much activity
to meet the goals of supervision reflected a
degree of choice. As shown in the previous
section, environmental qualities mediating
supervision included participants' opportu-
nity to interact with other psychologists and
members of related professions. For example,
those who coworked situated their supervi-
sion witbin tbeir work wbile those who were
more isolated relied more heavily on prear-
ranged and distance supervision.
Relationships played a part in the school
psychologists' selection of supervisory form.
The school psychologists noted their prefer-
ences for approaching certain colleagues and
commented that the value of formal supervi-
sion depended on the relationship between
177
partners. Participants identified four key qual-
ities associated witb either providing or re-
ceiving support: approach to school psychol-
ogy practice, interpersonal style, trust, and
level and nature of expertise.
Whether tiie supervision was formal or infor-
mal, the school psychologists selected their su-
pervisory partners from those who bad skill,
expertise, and knowledge. They sought col-
leagues who had cultural or discipline knowledge
and were highly esteemed by peers. For some
scbool psycbologists, expertise overrode otber
quaUties. For example, one noted tbat sbe would
look beyond poor interpersonal skül witb a super-
visor wbo maintained professional integrity and
another commented that she would put profes-
sional competence before trust. For oüier partici-
pants, bowever, trustworthiness was paramount.
Discussion
Active participation in supervisory activity
was reported by eacb participant in light of the
perspective on supervision when widened to
encompass the practice in which they engaged
for the purposes of support, knowledge, and
accountability. Tbe scbool psycbologists had
chosen to conduct their supervision in ways that
integrated with their work. They had developed
multiple relationships within dynamic profes-
sional networks where knowledge was sbared
and constincted in tbe context of everyday prac-
tice. Supervisory interactions were both inci-
dental and deliberate.
The participants largely were satisfied with
their access to supervisory support, even
though, in some cases, formalized dyadic super-
vision was not available or was not entirely
satisfactory. In sucb cases, the school psychol-
ogists had developed a range of means to pursue
the supervisory goals, the nature and particular
mix of activities being mediated by contextual
conditions. Tbis finding contrasts with tbe low
rates of participation and reports of dissatisfac-
tion wben notions of supervisory provision re-
lied on dyadic supervision models.
Supervision Activity and Contemporary
Theory
Tbe tbeory-in-action of tbe school psychol-
ogists reflected contemporary interactive un-
178 ANNAN AND RYBA
derstandings of access to and provision of
support, knowledge, and accountability. This
was demonstrated through the close align-
ment of the school psychologists' supervisory
activity with the espoused interactive theory
of current educational and school psychology
practice (see Annan & Priestley, 2011; Cam-
eron, 2006; Lee, 2010; Ysseldyke et al.,
2006). Supervisory activity extended beyond
traditional knowledge transmission and mon-
itoring notions of supervision.
The participants took advantage of the in-
creasing number of ways in which people
could connect and share knowledge in the
contemporary environment. The theory-in-
action evident in the participants' reports of
practice involved a dynamic network of di-
verse, context-specific connections. Although
traditional notions of supervision were im-
plicit in organizational requirements for su-
pervisors, this practice seemingly had been
supplemented or overtaken by the mulriple
modes of support and learning opportunities
currently available to school psychologists.
While formal dyadic supervision has re-
mained valued on the school psychologists'
menu of supervisory activities, the present
research has raised questions about its suit-
ability as the sole or even compulsory form of
supervision for experienced school psycholo-
gists. Supervision practices occurred among a
group of professionals who had gathered
knowledge within their own professional
community, knew the boundaries of their pro-
fession, and had learned how to access sup-
port. They knew who knew what, who was
available, who would be supportive, and who
worked with integrity. They connected with
peers and professionals from other communi-
ties in ways that allowed multiple profession-
als to know about one another's work. Their
practice contrasted with that of newcomers to
the profession who generally worked with
formally assigned, experienced supervisors
who introduced them to unfamiliar territory
and supported them to learn about the nature
and location of professional knowledge
within the community. The school psycholo-
gists actively sought suitable mentors for par-
ticular tasks, taking personal responsibility
for inquiring and networking as a matter of
course.
Support, Knowledge, and Accountability in
a Community of Supervision Practice
The school psychologists had created a net-
work of reciprocal professional support that re-
sembled a community of practice, namely an
organizational structure developed upon Lave
and Wenger's (1991) situated leaming theory.
The network of supervisory activity was shaped
by participants who, although not necessarily
colocated, similarly had voluntarily established
relationships with colleagues around valued and
shared professional knowledge and had utilized
diversity within their membership to further
their practice. Although this activity was not
required by the workplace organization, it
served to complement and extend the formal
supervision it encouraged.
In a corrmiunity of practice, as in the com-
munity of the present study, people voluntarily
link with one another, bound together by their
shared concem for a particular body of knowl-
edge and purpose of their work (Wenger,
1998a; Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002).
The community of practice comprises three di-
mensions; the domain (body of knowledge),
community (people and relationships), and
practice (the activities of the group). These di-
mensions are interdependent and constantly
transforming. There are core members, new-
comers, and those somewhere in between, all of
whom potentially contribute to the community
in different ways. In brief, newcomers contrib-
ute new knowledge, and core members share
and defend the community's valued traditional
knowledge. While membership of the commu-
nity is established upon its commonality of pur-
pose and core knowledge, new knowledge is
fostered through diversity and resolution of es-
sential tensions arising from difference. This
process serves to transform the community of
practice and to create a process that further
powers the community, keeping it alive, mean-
ingful, and operational.
As in the community of practice, each partic-
ipant in the present study connected with mul-
tiple people, the point of connection being de-
termined by the task at hand. The voluntary
supervisory networked activity that became vis-
ible had arisen alongside nonvoluntary work
tasks. Knowledge shared by the participants in-
cluded expUcit procedures as well as the tacit
understandings of the community (e.g., what
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
was ethical and who could help). Participants
were connected by their shared concerns for
school psychology practice and actively sought
a diverse range of knowledge and views. The
interdependence of these understandings and
actions can be shown by depicting supervision
as a community of supervision practice.
Figure 2 illustrates the three dimensions of a
dynamic community of supervision practice:
the domain, community, and practice. The do-
main comprises the knowledge that ties the vol-
untary group of members together and includes
understandings that are explicit, readily avail-
able, and most often legitimized, as well as the
more subde tacit knowledge that can be ac-
quired and constructed only through participa-
tion in supervisory interaction. The figure
shows the supervision community dimension
that mediates between theory and action, with
experienced members at the core and new prac-
titioners nearer the periphery. These positions
can change in relation to the type of knowledge
required for particular tasks. Within the group
there is a balance of commonahty and diversity
to create the required tensions for ongoing
change. The practice dimension represents the
actions taken by members, in this particular
illustration the actions of the participating
school psychologists, to meet their requirements
for support, knowledge, and accountabiUty.
Multicultural environments require school
psychologists to be prepared to work with peo-
Commonality.»
tSreHembei
Community
Practice
Figure 2. The community of supervision practice.
179
ple who know the world in ways that are both
similar and different from their own. Conduct-
ing work collaboratively, ethically, and cultur-
ally appropriately with reference to context is
supported through the interaction within multi-
ple relationships. In the present study, school
psychology practice was made visible and
known to a wider portion of the professional
community than would be possible were only
dyadic, closed relationships relied on to meet
their supervisory needs. Working in a multilo-
cated, multidisciphnary institution, they had the
opportunity to connect with the professional
community for professional support, and they
chose to do so. Tlie paramount position of pro-
fessional connections suggests that a key task
for mentors and supervisors of new psycholo-
gists is to introduce newcomers to the commu-
nity of supervision practice and for the more
experienced professionals to remain committed
to a dual participatory role as a learner and a
consultant.
Were a community of supervision practice to
be estabhshed, one aspect would need careful
consideration: voluntary participation. For each
participant in this study, as in the community of
practice (Wenger et al., 2002), networks had
developed naturally and interactions reflected
voluntary participation. Mediating qualities
(e.g., relevance of knowledge held in relation to
tasks at hand and the level of trust between
participants) played a part in the formation and
Jl
Diversity
Domain
Contemporaty
Knowledge
Knovs edge
Explcü
Kno^vtet ge
Traditioiial
Knowledge
180 ANNAN AND RYBA
maintenance of the networks. When developing
stmctures to support and encourage networking
between school psychologists, organizations
would need to resist formalizing supervisory
groups to the point where intrinsic interest in
participation was jeopardized. A community of
practice is characterized by the extent to which
participation is voluntary (Wenger et al., 2002).
An organization that encourages a multirela-
tionship model of supervision may expect that
each group formed would have a ti-ajectory or
life span. Networks are formed out of need,
gather energy, grow, and gradually wane as this
need is satisfied (Wenger, 1998b). At this point,
new networks may form to serve current needs.
In summary, a wider range of supervisory
activity and higher levels of participation in
supervision were revealed through widening the
perspective on supervision to include the di-
verse practices undertaken by the school psy-
chologists to meet their supervisory goals. The
supervision activity that served the purpose of
accessing support, furthering knowledge, and
ensuring accountability for the school psychol-
ogists in this study comprised a range of activity
and professional connections that responded to
and integrated with the school psychologists'
context of practice. Conceptualization of super-
vision as a multifaceted, multirelationship net-
work, such as the community of supervision
practice described in this article, aligns more
closely than do ti-aditional dyadic models with
the interactive theories of leaming upon which
contemporary school psychology practice is
based and the activity chosen by community
members. The restricted relationships implied
in traditional models of supervision are unlikely
to meet the supervisory needs of those working
in diverse, multicultiiral, increasingly connected
environments. It is timely to reconsider the
value placed on dyadic and fixed group models
and to recognize, acknowledge, and legitimize
diverse and contextually applicable supervisory
activities.
This study has considered the supervisory
activity of one group of school psychologists in
one environment. Different environments may
support different types of supervisory activity.
Thus, further understanding of contemporary
supervision may explore the actions taken by
members of other groups to meet the supervi-
sory goals of support, knowledge, and account-
ability. Research also may consider the mecha-
nisms of communities of supervision practice
that encourage and sustain these contextualized
systems and the nature of organizational struc-
tures that preserve and foster intrinsic interest in
advancing support, knowledge, and standards.
References
Allison, R., & Upah, K. R. (2008). Best practices in
supervising and leading school psychology staff to
operationalize system-level supports. In A.
Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
school psychology V (pp. 1991-2012). Bethesda,
MD: NASP.
Annan, J. (2005). Situational analysis: A framework
for evidence-based practice. School Psychology
Intemational, 26, 131-146.
Annan, J., & Priestley, A. (2011). A contemporary
story of school psychology. School Psychology
International, 33, 325-344. doi: 10.1177/
0143034311412845
Argyris, C , & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in prac-
tice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ashmore, R., & Carver, N. (2000). Clinical supervi-
sion in mental health nursing courses. British Jour-
nal of Nursing, 9, 171-176.
Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A dis-
crimination model. Counselor Education and Su-
pervision, 19, 60-68.
Cameron, R. J. (2006). Educational psychology: The
distinctive contribution. Educational Psychology
in Practice, 22, 289-404.
Chafouleas, S. M., Clonan, S. M., & VanAuken, T.
(2002). A national survey of current supervision
and evaluation practices of school psychologists.
Psychology in the Schools, 39, 317-325.
Crespi, T. D., & Dube, J. M. B. (2006). Clinical
supervision in school psychology: Challenges,
considerations, and ethical and legal issues for
clinical supervisors. The Clinical Supervisor, 24,
115-135.
Dickson, J. M., Moberley, N. J., Marshall, Y., &
Reilly, J. (2010). Attachment style and its relation-
ship to working alliance in the supervision of Brit-
ish clinical psychology trainees. Clinical Psychol-
ogy and Psychotherapy, 18, 322-333.
Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical
supervision. A competency-based approach.
Washington, DC; American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Farrell, P. (2010). School psychology: Leaming les-
sons from history and moving forward. School
Psychology Intemational, 31, 581-598.
Fischetti, B., & Crespi, T. (1999). Clinical supervi-
sion for school psychologists: National practices.
 NETWORKS OF SUPERVISION PRACTICE
trends, and future implications. School Psychology
Intemational, 20, 278-288.
Flanagan, R., & Grehan, P. (2011). Assessing school
psychology supervisor characteristics: Question-
naire development and findings. Joumal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 27, 21-41. doi: 10.1080/
15377903.2011.540504
Harvey, V. S., & Struzziero, J. A. (2008). Profes-
sional development and supervision of school psy-
chologists: Erom intern to expert. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Hewson, D. (1992). Supervising counsellors. The
Australian Counselling Psychologist, 8, 9-22.
Holbrook, A., & Johnston, S. (1999). Supervision of
postgraduate research in education. Coldstream,
Victoria: PJ Professional Resources Services.
HoUoway, E. (1995). Clinical supervision. A systems
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (1994). The art, craft, and
tasks of counselling supervision, Pt. 1. Making the
most of supervision. Twickenham, UK: Cascade
Publications.
Jimerson, S. R., Graydon, K., Yuen, M., Lam, S.,
Thurm, J., Klueva, N., . . . Phillips, J. (2006). The
intemational school psychology survey. School
Psychology Intemational, 27, 5-32.
Kadushin, A. (1992). Supervision in social work (3rd.
Ed.), New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Kennedy, H. (2006). An analysis of assessment and
intervention firameworks in educational psychol-
ogy services in Scotland. Past, present and possible
worlds. School Psychology Intemational, 27, 515-
534.
Koivu, A., Hyrkas, K., & Saarinenp, I. (2011). Who
attends clinical supervision? The uptake of clinical
supervision by hospital nurses. Joumal of Nursing
Management, 19, 69-79.
Larson, L. (1998). The social cognitive model of
counselor training. The Counselling Psychologist,
26, 219-273.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated teaming:
Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, C. D. (2010). Soaring above the clouds, delving
the oceans depths. Understanding the ecologies of
human leaming and the challenge for educational
science. Educational Researcher, 39, 643-655.
Marshall, K. (2009). Rethinking teacher supervision
and evaluation: How to work smart, build collab-
oration, and close the achievement gap. San Fran-
cisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.
Mclntosh, D. E., & Phelps, L. (2000). Supervision in
school psychology: Where will the future take us?
Psychology in the Schools, 37, 33-38.
McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2002). Supervision in
the helping professions. A practical approach.
Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson.
181
Milne, D. (2009). Evidence-based clinical supervi-
sion: Principles and practice. Chichester, UK:
BPS Blackwell.
Munson, C. E. (2002). Clinical social work supervi-
sion (3rd ed.). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth
Press.
National Association of School Psychologists.
(2011). Supervision in school psychology (Position
statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.
Nelson, J. A., Nichter, M., & Henriksen, R. (2010).
On-line supervision and face-to-face supervision
in the counseling internship: An exploratory study
of similarities and differences. Retrieved from
http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas 10/
Article_46.pdf
Nolan, J. F., & Hoover, L. A. (2007). Teacher su-
pervision and evaluation: Theory into practice.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Page, S., & Wosket, V. (1994). Supen/ising the coun-
sellor: A cyclical model. London, UK: Routledge.
Pomerantz, M. (1993). The practice of supervision
for local authority educational psychologists. Ed-
ucational and Child Psychology, 10, 16-24.
Proctor, B. (1987). Supervision: A co-operative ex-
ercise in accountability. In M. Marken & M. Payne
(Eds.), Enabling and ensuring. Supervision in
practice, Leicester, UK: National Youth Bureau.
Ryba, K., Annan, J., & Mentis, M. (2001). Develop-
ment of an integrated approach to behaviour sup-
port. Wellington, NZ: Massey University/Special-
ist Education Services, National Office.
Scaife, J. (2001). Supervision in the mental health
professions. East Sussex, UK: Brunner-Routledge.
Skovholt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (1992). Themes
in therapist and counselor development. Joumal of
Counseling & Development, 70, 505-515.
Smith Harvey, V., & Pearrow, M. (2010). Identifying
challenges in supervising school psychologists.
Psychology in the Schools, 47, 567-581.
Stenken, J. A., & Zajiek, A. M. (2010). The importance
of asking, mentoring and building networks for aca-
demics' career success-a personal and social science.
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 396, 541-
546. doi:10 1007/s00216-009-3275-x
Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U.
(1998). IDM supervision: An integrated develop-
mental model for counselors and therapists. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sullivan, J. R., & Conoley, J. C. (2008). Best prac-
tices in the supervision of interns. In A. Thomas &
J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychol-
ogy V (pp. 1957-1974). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
ThieUdng, M., Moore, S., & Jimerson, S. R. (2006). Su-
pervision and satisfaction among school psychologists.
An empirical study of professionals in Victoria, Austra-
lia. School Psychology Intemational, 27, 405-414.
Tummala-Narra, P. (2004). Dynamics of race and
culture in the supervisory encounter. Psycholana-
182 ANNAN AND RYBA
lytic Psychology, 21, 300-311. doi: 10.1037/0736-
9735.21.2.300
Wells, B. J. (2009). Perceptions of school psychology
supervisors and practitioners about supervision
practices in the southeastern region of the US: An
exploratory study using concept mapping (Doc-
toral dissertation. College of Education, Georgia
State University). Retrieved from http://digita-
larchive.gsu.edu/cps_diss/47/
Wenger, E. (1998a). Communities ofpractice. Leam-
ing, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998b). Communities of practice: Leam-
ing as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9(5),
1-5.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002).
Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to
managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-
ness Press.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Bums, M. K., Dawson, M., Kelly,
B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S . , . . . Telzrow, C. (2006).
School Psychology: A blueprint for the future of
training and practice III. Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Received May 24, 2012
Revision received December 11, 2012
Accepted December 11, 2012
Copyright of School Psychology Quarterly is the property of American Psychological
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.